6 ms·

> Dismantling the state run businesses should have been done more slowly, to allow the Soviet people time to adapt. Poland, Hungary and the Baltic countries mo

> Dismantling the state run businesses should have been done more slowly, to allow the Soviet people time to adapt. Poland, Hungary and the Baltic countries mostly did this, and they had far less problem after communism than Russia and most other former Soviet republics.

_delirium 15y ago
The Baltic countries also started with smaller and medium-sized companies first, privatizing a lot of stuff in the early 1990s that didn't have deep systemic involvement in the economy. The large, more difficult cases, like banks, electric companies, etc., were kept state-owned during the transition period. Once the transition was on better footing, they privatized the larger companies mostly in the 1997-2002 timeframe. That also let them float those companies in more traditional ways, such as IPOs on a stock market, rather than the experimental voucher system that was used in Russia.
mkup 15y ago
The difference between Baltic countries + Poland vs. Ukraine, Moldova and Russia is a lack of independent juridical branch of government, ephemeral property ownership rights, no rule of law, and, in general, more paternalistically minded people (towards government regulation of / interference in business). All of this makes medium sized business almost impossible to survive; rapid privatization in 1990s (as per subject article) seems totally irrelevant factor to me as a person living here: I see a reprivatization wave of roughly half large enterprises after each election cycle here. Corporate raidership is run by judges, governed by executive branch of govt by phone, and local analog of FBI is just a tool to bereave tasty property, they have no connection to justice at all. So how capital can accumulate in such an environment? There's no way.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  Who knows whether it is the reason behind the economic problems of 90-s, or it is a fallout of those. Perhaps if the whole country has not been rapidly blasted into a decade of absolute poverty, we'd have less corrupt justice and more rule of law.
  - mkup 15y ago
    My basic thesis is Capitalism in Eastern Europe is not gonna work until solid property ownership system is established, until the property and the capital is protected [from corrupt statesmen] by law, and this protection is enforced in practice. East-to-the-Poland nations can remain in this "half-assed capitalism" state forever, the transition is not gonna happen automatically. Poverty is just a consequence of such conditions, so it will remain as is until transformation of juridical branch of government is over.
    - guard-of-terra 15y ago
      The solid property ownership system isn't going to establish itself. What do you think can (should) be done to establish it?

_delirium 15y ago

The Baltic countries also started with smaller and medium-sized companies first, privatizing a lot of stuff in the early 1990s that didn't have deep systemic involvement in the economy. The large, more difficult cases, like banks, electric companies, etc., were kept state-owned during the transition period. Once the transition was on better footing, they privatized the larger companies mostly in the 1997-2002 timeframe. That also let them float those companies in more traditional ways, such as IPOs on a stock market, rather than the experimental voucher system that was used in Russia.

mkup 15y ago

The difference between Baltic countries + Poland vs. Ukraine, Moldova and Russia is a lack of independent juridical branch of government, ephemeral property ownership rights, no rule of law, and, in general, more paternalistically minded people (towards government regulation of / interference in business). All of this makes medium sized business almost impossible to survive; rapid privatization in 1990s (as per subject article) seems totally irrelevant factor to me as a person living here: I see a reprivatization wave of roughly half large enterprises after each election cycle here. Corporate raidership is run by judges, governed by executive branch of govt by phone, and local analog of FBI is just a tool to bereave tasty property, they have no connection to justice at all. So how capital can accumulate in such an environment? There's no way.

guard-of-terra 15y ago
Who knows whether it is the reason behind the economic problems of 90-s, or it is a fallout of those. Perhaps if the whole country has not been rapidly blasted into a decade of absolute poverty, we'd have less corrupt justice and more rule of law.
- mkup 15y ago
  My basic thesis is Capitalism in Eastern Europe is not gonna work until solid property ownership system is established, until the property and the capital is protected [from corrupt statesmen] by law, and this protection is enforced in practice. East-to-the-Poland nations can remain in this "half-assed capitalism" state forever, the transition is not gonna happen automatically. Poverty is just a consequence of such conditions, so it will remain as is until transformation of juridical branch of government is over.
  - guard-of-terra 15y ago
    The solid property ownership system isn't going to establish itself. What do you think can (should) be done to establish it?